Great. So we can expect at some point the USCG to physically challenge our claim to the Northwest Passage in our own waters using their new icebreakers. Can't wait. Really having a hard time with Canada assisting the US in any way with arctic security. In my mind the US is a closer and bigger threat to Canada than Russia.
Man, I find it funny how Davies and it's Finnish yards are trumpeted as Canadian in the Canadian press, "American", with a nod to the UK in this American press release, and probably (I haven't gone looking) as Finnish yards in Finnish press... The increasing intertwined nature of the defense industry makes for some odd press releases.
Just what I was thinking. Confusing to me but I guess that’s the intention. Make it sound right for political consumption. I guess what really counts is where the profits go and who owns the IP. Perhaps Noah could shed some light. BTW, isn’t the MPI a Seaspan design? Again, worthy of following the money. Where and how does the $ flow when a firm builds a ship using another company’s design?
Another BTW: just came across a Seaspan paper which is investigating the potential of building nuclear powered container ships using SMR technology. Reminds me of when we had to convert from straight winged CF-100 fighters to the Arrow, then the Voodoo, because the CF-100 could not catch up to swept wing jet airliners. Our RCD and CPS may be obsolete before being delivered if Seaspan follows through.
I would be interested in how the money flows as well.
I think any white paper about putting an SMR in a container ship is pretty long term doodles, seeing as the tech is in its infancy, and it takes years to build a factory that can produce them. That said, one of the main reasons people are excited by SMRs is the efficiencies of producing them serially, where all the up front costs are spread across many individual reactors. If we actually get some factories set up that start demonstrating the concept in reality, maybe this will get looked at seriously then, but we don't even really have shovels in the ground to build the SMR factories, and all the estimates I've heard are 10+ years for the first proof of concept units being produced. Maybe in 15 or 20 years something will come of the idea, but until then, we need to build what we can build now.
Great. So we can expect at some point the USCG to physically challenge our claim to the Northwest Passage in our own waters using their new icebreakers. Can't wait. Really having a hard time with Canada assisting the US in any way with arctic security. In my mind the US is a closer and bigger threat to Canada than Russia.
Hmmmm ………. “the US arm” of a United Kingdom ship builder ………..
Man, I find it funny how Davies and it's Finnish yards are trumpeted as Canadian in the Canadian press, "American", with a nod to the UK in this American press release, and probably (I haven't gone looking) as Finnish yards in Finnish press... The increasing intertwined nature of the defense industry makes for some odd press releases.
Just what I was thinking. Confusing to me but I guess that’s the intention. Make it sound right for political consumption. I guess what really counts is where the profits go and who owns the IP. Perhaps Noah could shed some light. BTW, isn’t the MPI a Seaspan design? Again, worthy of following the money. Where and how does the $ flow when a firm builds a ship using another company’s design?
Another BTW: just came across a Seaspan paper which is investigating the potential of building nuclear powered container ships using SMR technology. Reminds me of when we had to convert from straight winged CF-100 fighters to the Arrow, then the Voodoo, because the CF-100 could not catch up to swept wing jet airliners. Our RCD and CPS may be obsolete before being delivered if Seaspan follows through.
I would be interested in how the money flows as well.
I think any white paper about putting an SMR in a container ship is pretty long term doodles, seeing as the tech is in its infancy, and it takes years to build a factory that can produce them. That said, one of the main reasons people are excited by SMRs is the efficiencies of producing them serially, where all the up front costs are spread across many individual reactors. If we actually get some factories set up that start demonstrating the concept in reality, maybe this will get looked at seriously then, but we don't even really have shovels in the ground to build the SMR factories, and all the estimates I've heard are 10+ years for the first proof of concept units being produced. Maybe in 15 or 20 years something will come of the idea, but until then, we need to build what we can build now.
"They will get our own design before us"... You said the quiet part out loud.